Commence Part 2… Credit: Buy it in print, canvas or shirt form here. So, I may have misspoke. On one hand, it can be said that the novel is about many things:
It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline.
Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generally not accepted by the Wikipedia community. Some discussions are born lame; some achieve lameness; some have lameness thrust upon them. Upon coming across a discussion that is borderline lame, some Wikipedians may be tempted to go do something useful.
This is a big mistake.
Left to its own devices, the discussion might inadvertently become useful. What's the fun in that? It is essential that as many editors as possible chime in, not adding to the discussion at hand, but merely commenting how lame it is and what a big waste of time it is.
See Self-fulfilling prophecyPositive feedbackand Exponential growth.
Merely stating the discussion is lame is frequently not sufficient; every opposing statement must be denied with increasingly vehement assertions of the lameness.
While at first blush, wasting time whining about what a waste of time something is may seem illogical, the inherent irony just magnifies the lameness.
An additional step to increase lameness is to include repeated links to this essay, which is WP: The best way to set about a lame edit war is to change a large number of articles based on your interpretation of minutiae in the manual of style. If this does not work, try changing the MOS itself; that always works.
Guidelines on how to add an entry to this guide If you want to add a "lame edit war" to this page, keep the following in mind: It must have been an actual edit war.
Discussions on talk pages, even over trivially lame details, are not "edit wars" and should NEVER be added: Note that pithy quotes on talk pages may be suitable for Wikipedia: It should truly be amongst the lamest edit wars.
Not just garden-variety lame. Unless a participant is banned for their part in the edit war, do not give the names of participants or link to their userpages. People have lapses in judgment, and some end up edit warring; they shouldn't, however, be stuck with that for the rest of their on-wiki careers for no reason.
This is absolutely not the place for harping over someone's past editing.I.
“Silliest internet atheist argument” is a hotly contested title, but I have a special place in my heart for the people who occasionally try to prove Biblical fallibility by pointing out whales are not a type of fish. The Waste Land Questions and Answers.
The Question and Answer section for The Waste Land is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel. Unfortunately, the Be bug reporting system strips off the names of the people who report the bugs (to protect them from retribution!?) and so I don't know who wrote this.
Game theory is the study of the ways in which interacting choices of economic agents produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those agents, where the outcomes in question might have been intended by none of the initiativeblog.com meaning of this statement will not be clear to the non-expert until each of the italicized words and .
Game theory is the study of the ways in which interacting choices of economic agents produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those agents, where the outcomes in question might have been intended by none of the initiativeblog.com meaning of this statement will not be clear to the non-expert until each of the italicized words and phrases has been explained and featured in some.
Online Subscription. Unlock this article, and thousands more from our complete 55+ year archive, by subscribing at the low introductory rate of just $1 an issue – that’s 10 issues online plus six months of full archive access for just $